On July 9, less than a week after the Obama administration announced a one-year delay in the enforcement of the employer shared responsibility (aka “pay-or-play”) rules,1 the IRS has issued guidance making the move official. The guidance — Notice 2013-45 — refers to the delay as “transition relief for 2014” from the Act’s employer shared responsibility provisions and related reporting requirements.

Regards employer shared responsibility, the Notice asserts that the relief is intended to “to provide employers, insurers, and other[s] … time to adapt their health coverage and reporting systems”; and

Regards the reporting requirements, the Notice says that the relief is intended to “provide additional time for input from employers and other reporting entities in an effort to simplify information reporting consistent with effective implementation of the law.” (The information reporting rules have not yet been issued.)

Notice 2013-45 Q&As

The Notice, which is presented in question and answer format, answers the following questions:

(1) When will the rules be published regarding the Act’s information reporting requirements?

This question addresses particular reporting rules that are found in Internal Revenue Code sections 6055 (relating to insurers, self-insuring employers, government agencies, and other parties that provide health coverage) and 6056 (imposing a separate reporting requirement on applicable large employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees). The Notice clarifies that “no penalties will be applied for failure to comply with these information reporting provisions for 2014.” Interpretive guidance under the reporting rules will be issued this summer.

(2) What does the transition relief mean for application of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisionsin 2014?

The response makes clear that the employers that are subject to the Act’s employer shared responsibility provisions — “applicable large employers (i.e., those with 50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees on business days during the preceding calendar year) — will not be required to determine or remit payments irrespective of whether they offer “minimum essential coverage” under an “eligible employer sponsored plan.” (The terms “minimum essential coverage” and “eligible employer sponsored plan” are explained in our previous client advisory of January 16, 2013.)

(3) What is the impact of the delay on access by low- and moderate-income employees to the premium tax credits provided by state-based, partnership or Federally-facilitated insurance marketplaces?

The Notice emphasizes that individuals will continue to be eligible for the premium tax credits if their income is within the range specified by law and they are not eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including an eligible employer-sponsored plan that is affordable and provides minimum value. (The particulars of the premium tax credits rules are explained in our previous client advisory of May 16, 2013.) As a result, if an employer does offer minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored plan, and if that coverage is both affordable and provides minimum value, then the employee will not qualify for a premium tax credit irrespective of his or her household income.

(4) Does the delay affect any other provision of the Act?

No. The transition relief through 2014 for purposes of the Act’s employer shared responsibility rules and the reporting provisions described above do not modify or change any other provision of the Act, including the penalties imposed on individuals for failing to maintain minimum essential coverage.

Implications

Business groups were generally elated with the original announcement, and their advisors will similarly welcome the Notice. Compliance with employer shared responsibility rules is costly, and it has proved to be more complicated than many expected. Proposed regulations issued at the end of 2012 included a good deal of flexibility, but that flexibility comes at the cost of added complexity. The delay gives employers more time to understand and navigate these rules. But it also renders moot certain transition rules that require employers to take hours of service into account before January 1, 2014. Thus, data collection for compliance in 2015 will likely commence on and in some cases even before January 1, 2014.

The Act’s reporting rules are expansive. The delay takes the pressure off the regulators to issue rules prematurely. They now have time to carefully consider and integrate public comments, and provide rules that are at the same time workable and faithful to the statute.

The delay will also likely be welcome by insurance carriers who have been slow to develop products for the large group market. While the standards for plan actuarial value (or plan generosity) in the individual and small group as contrasted with the large group market and self-funded plans both refer to a 60% threshold for covering plan costs, the standards are different. The delay should give carriers the time to make plans available for large groups that are tailored to the specific requirements of the law. The Treasury Department and IRS will also need to modify existing guidance to take account of the delay.

While the delay in the implementation of the employer shared responsibility rules and the reporting rules is certainly welcome, employers would be wise to use this opportunity to focus on, rather than simply not think about, these rules. These rules have been delayed, not repealed, and they continue to represent a formidable compliance challenge.

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.